On Thu, 2016-11-17 at 09:24 -0700, Christopher Larson wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 9:21 AM, Fabio Berton > <fabio.ber...@ossystems.com.br> wrote: > No, I created a patch, git format-patch and then edit > generated files with Upstream-Status tag and added to recipe. > Is this wrong? > > As I indicated in my first reply, it’s best to put the tag outside the > generated patch (above it, or below the —-), as it isn’t part of the > commit, only part of the patch file.
Now I'm confused. My understanding was that http://www.openembedded.org/wiki/Commit_Patch_Message_Guidelines#Patch_Header_Recommendations explicitly asks for Upstream-Status in the patch header. Taking an existing example, is http://cgit.openembedded.org/openembedded-core/tree/meta/recipes-core/systemd/systemd/0001-core-device.c-Change-the-default-device-timeout-to-2.patch doing it wrong? > It’s minor, and you don’t need to re-submit, but in general the tag > is not part of the commit message. For example, if your patch was > applied to a git repository with git-am, it’d be in the commit > message, which should not be the case. Yes, that's indeed the effect. That has pros (the Upstream-Status tag is preserved when working with devtool) and cons (patch as attached to a recipe is not the same as the patch upstream). -- Best Regards, Patrick Ohly The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak on behalf of Intel on this matter. -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core